20051983 Ver 2_Application_20090311

ri
a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
February 24, 2009
Mr. David Baker, NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-2714

EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY

Subject: NW 23 Permit Application
Bridge Number 55 on SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap Road) over Tucker Creek
Transylvania County
State Project: B-4690 (DWQ Notification Only)
Dear Mr. Baker:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is proposing to replace Bridge
Number 55 on SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap Road) over Tucker Creek (C, Tr) in Transylvania
County. The COE issued a permit (Action ID. 200630164-0165) for this project on January
30, 2006; however, due to a lack of funding the project was not constructed and the permit
expired on March 18, 2007. Funding is now available and NCDOT would like to let this
project in the early summer of 2009 as part of the federal funding associated with the
economic stimulus package.
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing 37-foot long single span bridge with a 47-foot long
single span cored-slab bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the road by employing a staged
construction process allowing traffic on half of the bridge during construction. The new
bridge is designed to minimize impacts by implementing longer spans and increasing
hydraulic capacity. The removal of the existing structure shall be performed by sawing and/or
non-shattering methods such that debris will not fall into the water. All work will be
performed in a dry environment.
Enclosed for your review are a PCN application, the Categorical Exclusion document, a
marked county map, a USGS topographic map and photographs.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was checked for records of threatened and
endangered species. There are no records of threatened or endangered species for the entire
:'Tucker Creek watershed. This bridge will be replaced with another spanning structure that
will4iinimi2e long-term impacts and will result in only very minimal impact during and after
construction': The stream at the bridge site is a cold water trout stream and is not suitable for
freshwater mussels. For these reasons, this project will have "no effect" on threatened and
endangered species
Impacts to historic or cultural resources are not anticipated. Based on a review (CE
Document) by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Office of State
Archaeology, this project will have no effect on historic or archaeological resources.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Tucker Creek has a well-defined channel and is shown on the USGS topographic maps as a
perennial stream. The stream is of sufficient size to support fish, including trout, and other
aquatic organisms. The stream channel is composed primarily of sand, gravel and cobble
with a few boulders occurring near the bridge. The channel lacks vegetation. Tucker Creek
flows approximately 2.0 miles to the North Fork French Broad River. From this confluence,
the North Fork French Broad flows approximately 7.5 miles to the French Broad River. The
French Broad River meets the definition of a Traditional Navigable Water. For these reasons,
we believe Tucker Creek is a' Relatively Permanent Water under the jurisdiction of the US
Army Corps of Engineers. In order to construct the project, it will be necessary to impact
waters of the United States in the French Broad River Basin. Specifically, NCDOT is
requesting to replace Transylvania County Bridge No. 55 with a cored slab structure. Listed
below is a summary of the proposed impacts.
Site No.
Station Existing Condition Proposed Condition Net
Impacts
Concrete End Bent on Structure Removal and New
Site 1 East End of Bridge Concrete End Bent; Stabilize with 50'
Class H Ri ra
Site 1 Free Flowing Free Flowing Stream with 2' x 40' '

Unobstructed Stream
Temporary Sandbag Coffer Dam 40
(Temp)
Total net impact from riprap stabilization 50'
Temporary Impact for Coffer Dam 40'
The east end of the bridge will require stabilization with rock to protect the bent. The west
end bent is protected by natural rock formation and the bent will be well above the ordinary
high water mark. Other than the sandbag coffer dams, the rock stabilization at the east end of
the bridge is the only impact. We do not anticipate that there will be mitigation required for
the rock stabilization.
The best management practices for sensitive waters will be used to minimize and control
sedimentation and erosion on this project. The construction foreman will review all erosion
control measures daily to ensure sedimentation and erosion is being effectively controlled. If
the planned devices are not functioning as intended, they will be immediately replaced with
better devices.
Permits Requested
NCDOT is hereby requesting authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to
proceed with the construction project outlined above. By copy of this letter, I am asking Mr.
Dave McHenry, Mountain Region Coordinator, of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to comment directly to you concerning the 404 Nationwide Permit
request. Additionally, I am asking Ms. Chambers and Mr. Ed Ingle, Roadside Environmental
Field Operations Engineer (NCDOT), to comment directly to me concerning this permit
request.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (828) 497-
7953. Your early review and consideration will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
e:??
Chris D. Lee, P.E.
Division 14 Bridge Maintenance Engineer
cc: ..Mr. Brian Wren, DWQ, DENR Raleigh (2 courtesy copies)
Mr. Mike Parker, DWQ, Asheville (1 courtesy copy)
Mr. Troy Wilson, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Mr. Dave McHenry, Mountain Region Coordinator, NCWRC
Mr. Joel Setzer, P.E., Division Engineer, NCDOT, Sylva
Mr. Mark Davis, Division Environmental Officer, NCDOT
Mr. E. L. Ingle, Roadside Environmental Field Operations Engineer, NCDOT
o2?F W ATFg0G
O Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 23 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ?No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ? No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ? No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Bridge #55 on SR 1324
2b. County: Transylvania
2c. Nearest municipality /town: Rosman
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: B-4690
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: N/A
3e. City, state, zip: N/A
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.., N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Bridge Management Engineer
4b. Name: Chris D. Lee; P.E.
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
North Carolina Department of Transportation
4d. Street address: 178 Henry Bird Road
4e. City, state, zip: Whittier N.C., 28789
4f. Telephone no.: 828-497-7953
4g. Fax no.: 828-497-6095
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: N/A
5b. Business name
(if applicable): N/A
5c. Street address: N/A
5d. City, state, zip: N/A
5e. Telephone no.: N/A
5f. Fax no.: N/A
5g. Email address: N/A
Page 2 of 10
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.2194 Longitude: -82.8879
1c. Property size: N/A acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Tucker Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C Tr
2c. River basin: French Broad River Basin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The site is disturbed due to being in very close proximity to a road intersection. The vicinity is primarily fields and forest
with single family residences
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
N/A
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
100' in total project area
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To upgrade the functionally obsolete bridge with a new structure to meet current NCDOT standards.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The bridge will be stage constructed with traffic being maintained on part of the old bridge while the new section of cored
slab bridge is constructed. The traffic will then be switched and the remainder of the bridge will be constructed. Track
hoes, dump trucks, bulldozers, water pumps, sheet piling, various hand tools will be used to accomplish the work.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ® No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: N/A
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ? Preliminary Final
?
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: N/A
Name (if known): N/A Other: N/A
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions. The COE issued a General Permit Verification for NW 23
and 33 permit, Action ID. 200630164-0165 for this bridge project on January 30, 2006 that expired on March 18, 2007.
The project was not constructed due lack of funding. The project will follow the same plans as previously and is
scheduled to let in summer 2009.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T N/A N/A ? Yes ? Corps N/A
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ?DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts N/A
2h. Comments: N/A
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
Remove and
S1 ®P ? T Replace Concrete Tucker Creek ® PER ® Corps 23 50
Bent; Stabilize F-1 INT ® DWQ
Bank w/ Rock
S1 ? P ®T Sandbag Coffer
'
' Tucker Creek ®PER ® Corps
23
40
Dam 2
W x 40
L ? INT ® DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 50'
3i. Comments: Total Temporary Impact for Sandbag Coffer Dam is 40'
Page 4 of 10
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 41b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ? P ? T N/A N/A N/A N/A
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts N/A
4g. Comments: N/A
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose of (acres)
number pond Floode
d Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
P2
5f. Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5g. Comments: N/A
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes. ®No If yes, permit ID no: N/A
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): N/A
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): N/A
5k. Method of construction: N/A
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? N/A ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact.
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ? P ? T N/A N/A s N/A N/A
El No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts N/A N/A
6i. Comments: N/A
Page 5 of 10
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The new structure spans the creek. The project will be stage constructed to avoid an on-site detour. The new structure is
ten feet longer than the existing structure, which is better hydraulically and environmentally.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Any in stream work will be performed in the dry using coffer dams and pumps. No need for in stream work is anticipated
with this project. Appropriate BMPs according to the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan will be installed on
the project prior to bridge work.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: N/A
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type N/A Quantity N/A
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ? cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): N/A square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: N/A acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
N/A
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) -required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires ? Yes ® No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c. 6d. 6e.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet) (square feet)
Zone 1 N/A N/A 3 (2 for Catawba) N/A
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required: N/A
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
N/A
6h. Comments: N/A
Page 7 of 10
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ®No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments: N/A
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? N/A 0.
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Project is Covered by Individual NPDES
Permit NCS000250
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
N/A
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? N/A
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a . Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b . Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ®Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ?Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ®No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ?yes ®No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a rural secondary road. The bridge is being upgraded to standard load limits and width. The road is not being
upgraded and development patterns are not anticipated to change significantly.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical. Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes
No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?

Sc.
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ?
Raleigh
' ® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
North Carolina Natural Heritage Database and CE Document
Page 9 of 10
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
61b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
N/A-There are no marine or estuarine communities within the Blue Ridge Province
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes N No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
This bridge project has been screened by archaeologists with the NC Department of Transportation and the findings have
been approved by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? N Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: FEMA requirements were taken into consideration by the NCDOT
Hydraulics Unit during the design of the bridge.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodplain Mapping Program
Chris D. Lee ,p
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 10 of 10
ench roa Iver
PH ssod
pnason Greek
e?a a rd uA
?
? ?
a y00/1
e
9a ? 0e vo 2°
?A
a

A

?aa
0
?A+
s
U °ua,8 we]Un

o '0 MO//e NGZ

' 3
O J
A
m W
? Wao
/ DO
°r O?A AJ +gg,

3'
O4 ,
9?aJ /JJi
A
/A Uo@e An ac° °°ry
-?....
¢ 10
d 0?
oeo'
1°nd Greek
" an'
a,,J aa?
J`a ?/aai
U 0 y
2sN5 7
NG d v
?
N
F Silver ein
a

rry Br J
?
d a

LO a G

rro ?a

ek -Yea

Goo
5
s
rn ? Mo i
6A aiy
00
?o'r`O Y ?
v ? a c
y
m
v ?a
6
v
U Y ? Ga
v 2? ° = 1

h'aa?0 p CO
po?b\e OO
?
Ge?? a .06" E
tgZ fl aN
arb ?eMekol
/o0 e ?o
° A?
Pv?ec N

?0 y

a `O
U)
d F ? ? ON
ens Gap ro

o v .y U° Haag so
> U
I? c
6 Cie K
RockG K
GanadaR Ickens Creek Gr
- IZ0'a0
W
z+U)

N
N
V
M
N
N
O
0
P82' '? W Pez° s3' .oo W Pa2° s2' .oo" W -

r/)?1\?% 1Ji???f.\?\ c
( `` .? ll E t J1 (I,lyf, `t ?
/ l \ f ', r _ ?~i- \? \?1,
l , ~ L 1 •!/?>>-
\ 0 ? t ' (/ '\ ?G4k ..r !?'`
Yozaw it
?-
t V- , ({S ./?? An Ar,/ v--. ?? -,• r ? 266. ,/ - /,

j
'1 t y ' II `'

?
,•
,\
(?/????r
f
/
r
n C(
(
?1 Vii, Q\rr
m
r,4
a
7? ` _
?? l? ?\
r
r ,
( J 1

{ mil; .
l \ ,.\? • jC
)
1 c'?` ?\? 7
/ 1
v . ,
?(
1 >, \ L.''? ?, ?
\ d
?\ ;.
C., 1 _\ .??
aq '\) C\ JpPo \
\?. \
. f I r ?J ti / ? 1 ?.Ar I /

f_
- I r $STd-Ru
f 0?
• ,
, / i
Z ,4 Bodge 55:- ,-
1
r`i
keT ?r ?
\ • °
-
: -- -' Ttu
r_ ; 1\
`' ?i ?`
;??
`` '?°`
/'
1 o.
?? ?
^
' .
:\\?
l :..?
r > e r
?, o
?J
J I ?. !/ CJ ? _.J \ tr\ ?i 1J ' II

Irv/L'_'.
V
2
\
-
Z
?
8 I
( r ..
p \\

?
??''
?
1
7
\•
?
'
???J:.
fi
._ .r: SCALE 1:24000
0 1 MILES
N
?,
o j'
-
if J CJ /
?
?
?
J l? \ .. r
?
f /J
r ( ? y 0 1000 YARDS Q

r 0 1 KILOMETER
C
I 1 1 082° 54' p0.00• Nt I I I b82° 53' p0.00• W I I b82° 52' x0.00" W
Name: LAKE TOXAWAY Location: 035°13' 12.68" N 082° 53' 19.41" W NAD 27
Date: 2/20/2009 Caption: B-4690, Bridge 55 on SR 1324 (Tanassee Gap Road) over
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Tucker Creek, Transylvania County
TIP No B-4690, Bridge 55 on SR 1324, Tanasee Gap Road
Transylvania County
Tucker Creek Upstream of Bridge
TIP No B-4690, Bridge 55 on SR 1324, Tanasee Gap Road
Transylvania County

9
EXISTING BRIDGE No. 55 TBM:
15'-10%"CLEAR ROADWAY `BENCHLITE'
SINGLE 36'-7"SPAN TBBEM
TIMBER FLOOR ON STEEL ELEV.= RIGHT
290:
GIRDER FLOOR SYSTEM
END BENT ABUTMENTS - YOUNT MASONRY
GR LENGTH = 75'-0"
O ?
O
AS
N R D SO AS NOT O ALLOW
TRACTOR SHALL REMOVE THE BRIDGE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 402-2 OF
OF THE ISTIN
. ._._( BRIDGE INDICATED ON
EXTSTISO
0
HpYW000 CO•
5 BT°56'OB'E -
_?. EXISTING R/ vi

.8
o?
_________________
CROWN LINE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
EISMIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES FOR SEISMIC
ON THE EXISTING STRUCTURAL STEEL CONTAINS
IN T< f1TOC11rn r- .
HORIZONTAL CURVE DATA
PI STA. 11+74.10 -L-. PZ STA.12+91.23 -L-
?= 13 °1T43.(RT) 0= 43°11'97"(L7)
D = 14°48'18' D = 95°29'35"
L = 89.80' L = 45.24'
R = 387' R = 60'
-a---L OF EXISTING STRUCTURE ' LL of INCLUDED IN THE BID PRICE
\? ) BEARING CAPACITY OF THE SPREAD FOOTINGS AT END BENTS 1 & 2
KSFL THE REQUIRED BEARING CAPACITY SHALL BE VERIFIED.
s ALL BE KEYED AT LEAST 12-INTO ROCK WITH MINIMUM THICKNESS
y THE PLANS.
JRE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FHWA'S TECHNICAL
140.20 (SCOUR AT BRIDGES ).
ING (?R YEAR 1996,
e OF RIP RAP TO BE PAID FOR WILL BE THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF TONS
5 OF RIP RAP WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE COMPLETED
7 WORK. THE RIP RAP WILL BE MEASURED BY BEING WEIGHED IN
"RTIFIED PLATFORM SCALES OR OTHER CERTIFIED WEIGHING DEVICES.
( OF RIP RAP WILL BE PAID FOR AT THE CONTRACT UNIT PRICE
?[DATA: CLASS II ( 2'-0" THICK ) END BENT No. 1 73 TONS
END BENT N0.2 80 TONS
TOTAL 153 TONS
STA. 11+10.00 S TA. 11+50.00 ST A. 12+10.00 STA. 12+65 00
ELEV. 2887.63' ELEV. 2885.49' ELEV. 2882.19' ELEV. 288117
V.C: 30'
GRADEDATA
-L- (SR 1324)
2900 BEGIN PAVEMENT FILI
2890 STA
BEG
f
2880
PROJECT. N0. 8.2001701
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
STATION: 12+46.67
55
2860
11+00
F.. A. PROJ. NO. PFH-150(1)
CONTROL MEASURES SEE EROSION CONTROL PLANS.
G AS A TEMPORARY <TCUrT-l r.,,-
uMII AJIUN MAY BE REDUCED AS
THE PROJECT.
u
ESIGN FLOOD - 1400 CFS
25 YEAR
TER ELEVATION - 2878.2
E (Q 100) - 5.5 So. MI.
2200 CFS .
ER ELEVATION - 2880.8
DISCHARGE - 22001-CFS
OVERTOPPING FLOOD - 100! YEAR
FLOOD ELEVATION - 2880.7
BY W. B. ALLENN
aeso DATE : 9/03
eY : R.aL MULKEY
DATE 55%O4
51.1[ Lf XpPiM LI110.IX1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RAEEI W
BRIDGE ON SR 1324
OVER TUCKER CREEK
WEST OF NC 215
27' CLEAR ROADWAY 90° SKEW
OATS: 11 1
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: B4690. Bridge 55 on SR 1324
State-NC County/parish/borough: Transylvania City: Rosman
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.2194° 13, Long. 82.8879° .
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Tucker Creek (DWQ Class C Tr)
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: French Broad River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 06010105010010
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: 02/19/2009
Field Determination. Date(s): 2120/2009
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There ii > 7 "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
?I Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or maybe susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There 0 "waters of the U.S" within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
Q TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNR's
i3 Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs '
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 100 linear feet: 23 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: to ' 1t ' bY,t' -
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) 3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
' Supporting documentation is presented in Section BI.F.
SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section IH.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections IILAA and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section IH.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent toTNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Riza"as have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TN Ws where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) now, skip to Section HI.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section UTDA.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody4 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section HLC below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TN W
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: =I
Drainage area: Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW-
? Tributary flows directly into TNW.
? Tributary flows through ,is tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Mwgi- river miles from TNW
Identify flowroute to TNW':
Tributary stream order, if known:
Project waters are river miles from RPWProject waters are aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.
(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that aoolv)'
Tributary is: ? Natural
? Artificial (man-made). Explain:
? Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: ye`MA-
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
? Silts ? Sands - ? Concrete
? Cobbles ? Gravel ? Muck
? Bedrock ? Vegetation. Type/% cover:
? Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of mn/riffle/ ool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry:
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): %
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: - ekh
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: MW
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: . Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: ?. Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed: .
Tributary has (check all that apply):
? Bed and banks
? OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
? clear, natural line impressed on the bank ?
? changes in the character of soil ?
? shelving ?
? vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ?
? leaf fitter disturbed or washed away ?
? sediment deposition ?
? water staining
? other (list):
? Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
ED High Tide Line indicated by: 21
? oil or scum line along shore objects
? fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
? physical markings/characteristics
? tidal gauges
? other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of tenrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ne lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
? survey to available datum;
? physical markings;
? vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
°A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.
(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type; average width):
? Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationshi with Non-TNW:
Flow is:.a - .Explain:
Surface flow is:
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow:. i - 't, Explain findings:
? Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adiacency Determination with Non-TNW:
? Directly abutting
? Not directly abutting
? Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
? Ecological connection. Explain:
? Separated by berm/barrier. Explain:
(d) Proximity (RelationshiDLto TNW
Project wetlands are river miles from TNW.
Project waters are ' 'ts aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from:
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the -ic r floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
? Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): . .
? Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
? Habitat for:
? Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
? Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
? Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
? Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: m
Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.
For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (YIN) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in theRapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section IILD:
2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section IILD:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: Tucker Creek is 10-12 feet wide at the project site. It has sufficient flow to support trout and other
aquatic life..
Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 100 linear feet 23 width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: hnear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
NJ Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section 11I.13 and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
M Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section 11I.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters?
As a general rule, the impoundment of ajurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
3S . Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED (INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE) WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 1o
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
% from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
'See Footnote # 3.
' To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section In.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.
Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates foriurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
5 Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
k< Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
? Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
'udgment (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
? Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
ro Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
? Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. -
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. .
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
sv FEMA/FIRM maps:
it 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date):
or ® Other (Name & Date):Project Site 2/20/2009.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
_._ _..r Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1324
Bridge No. 55 over Tucker Creek
Transylvania County
Federal-aid Project No. PFH-150(1)
State Project No. 8.2001701 (WBS PE 33836.1.1)
T.I.P. No. B-4690
In addition.to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State. Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds, Erosion and Sediment
Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions
of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Division 14
Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to design standards for sensitive
watersheds.
The NCWRC requests a moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land disturbance
within the 25-foot (7.6-meter) trout bufferfrom October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg
and fry stages of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo trutta).
Bridge Maintenance Unit

Green Sheet
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4690
State Project No. 8.2001701 (WBS PE 33836.1.1)
Federal Project No. PFH-150(1)
A. Project Description:
This p roj ect replaces Bridge N o. 5 5 o n S R 1324 o ver T ucker C reek i n t he
Balsam Grove community in Transylvania County. The existing single-span,
37-foot bridge will be replaced with a single span cored-slab bridge 47 feet in
length, on a 90 degree skew above the stream. The clear roadway width will
be 27-feet. Because SR 1324 is a dead-end road, an on-site detour is proposed.
The new project will be staged-constructed so that traffic can be maintained
throughout the construction period.
B. Pumose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 55 has a
sufficiency rating of 46.4 and is functionally obsolete. The superstructure
consists of a timber floor on a steel girder floor beam system. Substantial rust
is evident on the steel girders. The substructure includes Yount masonry
abutments. It i s a o ne-lane b ridge w ith a clear r oadway w idth o f 15.8 feet.
Replacement of the structure is necessary due to its deteriorating condition
and functionally obsolete. status.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through
lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f'-Replacing -and rehabilitating-culverts; inlets,-and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through
. lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d., Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and
pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or
realignment
h., Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including
removing hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or. replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
O Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural
improvements
Od Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest area.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
-Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
. predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
2

construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage an maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 240,000
Right of Way $ 0
Total $ 240,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current 2003 - 350 vehicles per day
Year 20309 - 850 vehicles per day
TTST - 2%
Dual - 1%
-----------Accidents: --According to crash records-for the-three-year period-from
12/01/1999 to 11/30/2002, no crashes were reported in the vicinity of the
bridge.
3
Design Speed: 50 miles per hour
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
School Buses: According to Transylvania County Schools, two buses cross
Bridge No. 55 twice each day, for a total of four crossings.
Division Office Comments:
SR 1 324 i s a d ead-end road. T herefore, r oad c losure and u se o f an o ff-site
detour are not possible on this project. Staged-construction will be used in
order to maintain traffic. One lane of traffic is acceptable during construction.
Bridge Demolition:
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this
project, the NCDOT and all p otential c ontractors should follow appropriate
guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These guidelines are presented
in three NCDOT documents entitled Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters
of the United States, and Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal (BMPs-BDR) (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines
followed for bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those
implemented for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters (BMPs-PSW).
This project is a Case 2 under BMPs-BDR guidelines. This is based upon
classification of waters in the project area and comments received from
agencies during the consultation process. A Case 2 project allows no work in
the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration,
spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas. The NCWRC requests a
moratorium prohibiting in-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-
foot (7.6-meter) trout buffer from October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg
and fry stages of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brown trout
(Salmo trutta).
Offsite Detour: An on-site detour is proposed. The new project will be
stage-constructed so that traffic can be maintained throughout the construction
period.
4
E. Threshold Criteria:
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
ECOLOGICAL
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique
or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur?
X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
?
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable x
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of U.S. Forest Service
lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
?
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters
(HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any X
"Area of Environmental Concern"(AEC)?

(11) . Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
?
resources? X
5
(12) Willa U.S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? 1-1 X
SOCIAL. ECONOMIC. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? ? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any
minority or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is

the amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ?
X

(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefuhiess and/or
land use of adjacent property? ? X_
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, ?
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of X
1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using ?
existing roads, staged construction or on-site detours? X
6
(25) If the project is abridge replacement project, will the
bridge be replaced at its existing location (along the
?
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in X
association with the bridge replacement project be
contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds conceming the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic X
Places?
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which
are important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in X
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act
of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as ? X
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and X
Scenic Rivers?
E. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Agency letters in response to the project scoping letters are provided in
Appendix A. Although no unfavorable responses were indicated above,
additional supporting documentation is provided for informational purposes in
Appendix B.
7
F. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-4690 -
State Project No. 8.2942901(WBS PE 33836.1.1)
Federal-aid Project No. PFH-12(1)
Project Description:
This p roject replaces Bridge No. 5 5 on S R 1324 over Tucker Creek in the
Balsam Grove community in Transylvania County. The existing bridge will
be replaced with a singles span cored-slab bridge 47 feet in length. The clear
roadway width will be 27 feet. Because SR 1324 is a dead-end road, an on-site
detour is proposed. The project will be stage-constructed so that traffic can be
maintained throughout the construction period.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
Approved:
\\o-Q3
,c
Date
X TYPE U (A)
TYPE 11(B)
Date DOT State
For Type II (B) projects only:
and Consultants
Maintenance Engineer
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8

G
T
j ??cc of Arch`' .
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 6, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
Bridge Maintenance Unit
N.C. Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook a "W& Nmk_
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge Noon SR 1324 over Tucker Creek, B-4690, Transylvania
County, ER03-1339
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 2003, concerning the above project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the
replacement is to be located along the existing alignment and there is no on-site detour, it is
unlikely that significant archaeological resources will be affected and no investigation is
recommended. If, however, the replacement is to be in a new location, or an on-site detour
is proposed, an archaeological survey is recommended.
We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and
evaluate any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings
to us.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
DB:bjs
ADMINISTRATION
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
.state.nc.us
Mailing Addren
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617
4613 Mail Servicc Center. Raleigh NC 27699.4613
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
(919) 7334763 • 733-8653
[phone] • 715-4801
[phone] • 7154801
Lisa Warlick
From: Jeff McDaris [e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:05 PM
To: Lisa Warlick
Subject: Re: Response to scoping letters on bridge replacement projectsB-4690 and B-4691
Lisa,
I thought the response had gone in'; but I apologize since it must not have.
I am away at a conference in Greensboro and cannot confirm, but I am pretty certain that we have two buses that
cross those locations each day to and from (AM and PM). One is a regular bus and the other is a Special Ed.
bus. .
If those bridge are closed for repair and renovation, .we will let families know. Please just let us know the dates
as early as possible.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeff McDaris
Director - Career & Technical Education
Director - Transportation Services
SACS Coordinator .
Transylvania County Schools
www.transylvania.kl2.nc.us
>>> "Lisa Warlick° <L,[e-mail]> 09/16/03 2:37 PM >>>
.Mr. McDaris,
My firm is working on two bridge replacement projects in Transylvania County for the NCDQT. We,sent you a
scoping letter in early May to request comments on the projects, and also to provide us with the number of
school bus crossings over the bridges each day. We are not aware of a response to the letter. Could you take a
few minutes to search for it and respond? The projects will replace Bridge Nos. 55 and 59 on SR 1324 (Tanasee
Gap Road) over Tuckers Creek. An email response will be fine. We just need something in writing for our
.reports. If you peed"assistance in locating the bridges I can fax you.a map or will be glad to talk with you by
phone. Thank§ for your. help and I look forward to your response.
Lisa Warlick
Lisa Warlick. .
t
_2_
Y
r_
y
i
Michael F. Easley, Governor
- - - - William G.. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan. W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
v '? - - ' Coleen H.Su0ins; Deputy Director
- Division of Water Quality
July 10, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mike Summers, Project Manager
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit q
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele,NCDOT Coordinator (AAA)
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects: B-3430, B-3431, B4347,
B-4348, B-4349, B4690, B4691, and B-4692 in. Cherokee, Jackson, Transylvania and Haywood
Counties.
In reply to your correspondence dated May 1, 2003 (received June 19, 2002) in which you requested comments
for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments:
L General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Projects
1. If corrugated metal .pipe arches; reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace the
bridge, then DWQ recommends the use of Nationwide Permit No. 14 rather, than Nationwide Permit 23.
2. Bridge demolition should be performed, using Best Management Practices developed by NCDOT.
3. DWQ prefers spanning structures.' Spanning structures'usually do not require mork within the stream and do
not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for
human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
- : canoeists and boaters:
4i . Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into. the stream; stornawater should be directed across the
bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed` swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated
buffers, etc.) before entering the stream Please refer to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters
5, -Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream. Concrete is mostly
made up of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium carbonate is very
soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unhardened state concrete or cement will change the
pH of fresh water to very basic andwill cause fish and.other macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports`(bents).should not be placed in the stream
7: If temporar
y access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original ground
elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should. be seeded or mulched to
stabilize the soil and native treespecies should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If
possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with
chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact,
allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
8:.. A clear. bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath the
bridge.,
RAM
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit, -
-1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location).
. [phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (htto://h2O.enr state nc Us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: -1.877-623-6748 - r
9. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented prior
to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly, especially following rainfall
events.
10. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent sedimentation
of water resources.'
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, rock berms,
cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent excavation in flowing
water.
12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This equipment should
be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
IL General Comments W Replacine the Bridge with a Culvert
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the culvert or pipe invert
should be buried at least l foot below the natural streambed (measured from the natural thalweg depth). If
multiple barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream
bankfull or floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the upstream end to restrict
or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause noxious
or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low
flows to accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched
baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life
passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by
providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide
a continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
-2: If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during normal
flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel,alignment whenever possible to avoid :channel
realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided. `Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet
end of structures typically decreases water velocity. causing sediment deposition that requires increased
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be professionally designed,
sized, and installed.
I,
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure. If road
closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the
need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should
be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed was previously
wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation -
for the subject project or other projects in the watershed.

III. Project-Specific Comments
B-3430 Bridge 43 over Hanging Doe Creek' Cherokee Co
Although this stream is listed as Class C, there are significant aquatic resources (Federal and State listed species
of concern). DWQ would prefer this bridge to be replaced with a bridge and the use of BMPs (particularly for
sediment and erosion control) to be maximized.
B-3431 Bridge No. 45 over Beaver Dam Creek Cherokee CO..
This stream contains several significant aquatic resources (Federal and State listed species of concern, threatened
and endangered species). DWQ would prefer this bridge to be replaced with a bridge and the use of BMPs
(particularly for sediment and erosion control) to be maximized.
Bailey Fork Creek is listed as WS-IV.' There are 30-foot vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition
to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximize use of BMPs. Refer to I5A NCAC 2B
.0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G).: .
B-4347 Bridge No. 3 over Norton Mill Creek Jackson Co
Norton Mill Creek is classified as C Tr +. The +sign indicates that this drains to Outstanding Resource Waters.
Since ORWs represent the State's highest water quality classification, DWQ Would hope thata spanning structure
is planned for:this crossing. In addition; there are numerous Federal and State listed species in the project,.
.
vicinity. Finally, we would stress that NCDOT should use the highest possible BMPs for protecting this resource.
B-4348 Bridge No. 156 and B-4349 Bridge No 36 over Dicks Creek Jackson Co..
DWQ is aware that there may be mussel populations on this site as well as Federal and State listed species of
concern:; We recommend a spanning structure and maximizing the use of BMPs to minirnize'damage to these
aquatic resources. If NCDOT is replacing.these structures with culverts, you should be aware.that this involves
two impacts to the same stream-impacts must be added together and mitigation may be required.
B-4690 Bridge No. 55 and B-4691 Bridge No 59 over Tucker Creek Translvvania Co
If NCDOT is replacing these structures With culverts,.you should be aware that this involves:two impacts to the
same stream-impacts must be added together and mitigation may be required:
B-4692 Bridge 283 over Weslevs Creek Haywood Co
DWQ does not have any special concerns. Please refer to general recommendations'listed above.
Thank you for requesting our input at this. time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards' are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
PC: John Hendrix, USACE Asheyille Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers,.NCWRC
File Copy
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed
or. listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you .
advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any are found in the
vicinity of yow projects. Our records indicate the following:
Cherokee County:
In general, while there are no known locations of the Indiana bat in the vicinity of
these projects, if trees will be cleared for these projects, habitat should be assessed
for this species; if suitable habitat is present, further surveys may be required.
Project B-3430 (Log No. 4-2-03-343) - Our records indicate known occurrences
of the sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp.1) in Hanging Dog Creek. Although the
sicklefm redhorse currently is a federal species of concern, its status.is under
review. This species may be elevated to candidate status for federal listing. We
recommend surveying the project area for this species prior to any further .
planning or on-the-ground activities. We also strongly recommend that this
bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
Proiect B-3431 (Log No 4 2=03-344) - Our records indicate no known locations
of listed species in the project area. However; we recommend conducting habitat
assessments and surveying any suitable habitat in the project area for these species
prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse
impacts occur. .
Jackson County:
Proiect B-4347 (Log No. 4-2-03-345) - Our records indicate that there are known
locations of the green salamander (Aneides aeneus), a federal species of concern,
near the proposed project. We recommend conducting habitat assessments and
surveying any suitable habitat in the project area for this species prior to any.
further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts
occur.. .
1- 4
Project B-4348 (Log No. 4-2-03=346) and Project B-4349 (Log No. 4-2-03-347) -
Dick's Creek is.a tributary to the Little Tennessee River, and it flows into
occupied habitat and designated critical habitat for the endangered Appalachian
elktoe (Alasmidonta raveniliana). Given the proximity of these projects to the
Little Tennessee River, we recommend surveying for listed mussels in Dick's
Creek prior to any on-the-ground activities. If mussels are located, additional
consultation will be required.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS V

Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC-
Hairy blueberry Vaccinium hirsutum FSC
JACKSON COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation: Appalachian elktoe, Alasmidonta raveneliana - The
main stem of the Tuckasegee R iver. (Little Tennessee River, system), from the N .C. State
Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina, downstream to the
N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Swain County, North Carolina.
Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent, flo wing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorp hically stable stream channels and banks;
(iii) Pool, riffle,
and run sequences within the ch .
annel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and
bedrock, substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment;
(v) Moderate to .
.
high stream gradient; (vi) Periodic natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, with adequate
diving, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates .
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl . Aegolius acadicus FSC
Green salamander : Aneides aeneus FSC
Rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides ssp. 1 FSC:
Hellbender .. Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC '
Wounded darter Etheostoma vulneratuin FSC
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC
"Sicklefin" redhorse Moxostoma sp. I FSC
Indiana bat.. Myotis sodalis Endangered

Southern Appalachian woodrat
Neotoma floridana haematoreia (winter records)
FSC
Southern Appalachian black-capped Poecile atricapillus practicus:
' FSC
chickadee .
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Northern pine snake . Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus '. FSC
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied' Sphyrapicus varius app ilaciensis FSC

sapsucker .
Appalachian Bewick's-wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Enda ngered
French Broad cra tsh
Yf
Cambarus reburrus
FSC
Whitewater crayfish.ostracod Dactyloctythere prinsi FSC
Tawny crescent butterfly Phycoides batesii maconenses FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria Jana FSC
Vascular; Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis- . FSC'
Radford's sedge Carex radfordii FSC -

Cuthbert's turtlehead
Chelone cuthbertii
.;
FSC:

January 29, 2003 -
Page 2 of 6

COMMON NAME
?.
SCIENTIFIC NAME
; - STATUS

Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum = FSC%
: l
Glade spurge Euphorbiapurpurea
I
FSC
Swamp pink. Helontas bullata Threatened {
Gorge filmy fern _• .. Hymenaphyllum tayloriae FSC
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides :. Threatened :
Butternut Juglans cinerea
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachiafraseri FSC'
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Torrey's,mountain-mint Pycnanthemumtorrei :.• FSC*:..
Carolina saxifrage ' .: Saxifraga caroliniana. FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort, Senecio millefolium FSC . .
Mountain catchfly ,. Silene ovata FSC
Granite dome goldenrod Solidago simulans FSC .
Mountain thaspium .: Thaspium pinnatifidum FSC* .
Lobed barren-strawberry Waldsteinia lobata ... FSC*
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge:moss . Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen.... Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort _ Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera
:
FSC..
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica.var. caroliniana : FSC
„ A liverwort
:
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii
FSC
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
Critical'Habitat•Designation: Appalachian elkt',,Alasmidonta raveneliana - The
main stem of the Little River (French Broad River system), from the Cascade Lake
Power. Plant, downstream to its confluence with the French Broad River.
Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include: (i) Permanent flowing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks; (iii) Pool, riffle,
and run. sequences within the channel; (iv) Stable sand; gravel, cobble, bould er, and
bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts:of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to
high stream gradient;,(vi) Periodic natural flooding; .and_ (vii).Fish hosts, with adequate.
living,'foragin and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates
'Southern Appalachian saw whet owl 'Aegolius acadicus FSC
'Green salamander Aneides"aeneus FSC .
Bog turtle Clemniys muhlenbergii' T(S/A)'
Rafinesque's big-eared bat .Corynorhinus rafinesguii FSC*
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Carolina. northern flying,squirrel :: "Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus' ;.Endangered
Southern Appalachian red crossbHl Loxia curvirostra: ESC .
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma jloridana haematorei.a FSC*
Southern Appalachian-black-capped Poecile atricapillus practicus FSC .:.
chickadee

January 29, 2003. ..:... Page 3 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
:
STATUS
.
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied . .Sphyrapicus varies appalaciensis. FSC.` .
sapsucker..
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscures ' HC
Appalachian Bewick's:wren Thryomanes.bewickii altus FSC* '
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe .: Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
French Broad crayf-
ish
.

Cambarus reburrus
FSC -,
Oconee crayfish.ostracod Cymocythere clavata FSC
Oyster mussel Epiohlasma capsaeformis Endangered
Margarita River skimmer Macromia margarita" FSC
%Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria liana FSC*
Transylvania crayfish ostracod Walfoncythere acuta- FSC
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir. Abies frasert.. FSC
Alexander's rock aster: Aster avitus FSC
Cuthbert's turtlehead Chelone cuthbertit FSC
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered

Smoky Mountain mannagrass

Glycerianubigena._. ,

FSC
.Swamp.pink Helonias bullata Threatened
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformts FSC, .
Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut ; . Juglans,cinerea FSC
:
Fraser. s loosestrife stmachiafraseri
LY
FSC...__
Sweet pinesap .
Monotropsis:odorata FSC
Flatrock panic grass , Panicum lithophilum FSC*
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii Endangered
Southern Oconee-bells ' Shortia galaci, folia var. galacifolia FSC
Lobed barren-strawberry Waldsteinia W ata . .
FSC ..
'Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss : Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort., Plagiochtla,sharpit FSC;:
_
A liverwort Plagtochila sullivantii var. sullivantii .
FSC .
A liverwort :..• Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana FSC
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation: So, ruce-fir moss spider, Microhesura montivaga - .
Critical habitat designated (see the July 6, 2001, Federal Register, 66:35547-35566). ". ,
Critical Habitat Designation: _ Appalachian elktoe,Alasmidonta raveneliana
.
-
The
.
main stem of the West Fork Pigeon River (French Broad River system); from the
confluence of the Little East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the confluence of the .
East Fork Pigeon River, and the main stem of the Pigeon River, from the confluence of
the West Fork Pigeon River and the East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the
N.G. Highway 215 Bridge cross ing, south of Canton, North Carolina

January 29, 2003 Page 4 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS

Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include (i),Permanent, flowing,
cool, clean water; (ii) Geomorphically stable stream channels and banks ; (iii).Pool, riffle,
and run sequences within the channel; (iv) Stable sand, gravel; cobble; boulder, and .. '.
bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment; (v) Moderate to '
high stream gradient;.(vi) Peri odic natural flooding; and (vii) Fish hosts, .with adequate
living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Vertebrates '
Southern Appalachian
saw whet owl
Aegolius acadicus
FSC
Bog turtle .. Clemmys.muhlenbergii ?. T(S/A)?
:. Olive-sided flycatcher. Contopus borealis - FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis . FSC _.::.
Ceruleadwarbler Dendroicp cerulea FSC :.:
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus.leucocephalus Threatened .`
(proposed for delistmg) : .
SouthernAppalachian red crossbill . Loxia curdirostra FSC '
'Southern.rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC
Gray bat
: Myotis grisescens Endangered...
Southern Appalachian
woodrat . NeotomaJloridana haematoreia : FSC'..
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister FSC
southern Appalachian black capped Poecile atricapiZlus practicus FSC
chickadee.
Eastern cougar Puma concolor couguar Endangered*
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Southem,Appalachian yellow-bellied :Sphyrapicus.variusappalaciensis`'. FSC
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail' " Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
AppalachiatrBewick's wren. Thryomanes 6ewickii altos FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachianelktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura, montivaga Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly. Phyciodes batesi niaconensrs FSC'
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC .'
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri: FSC .,
Piratebush' Buckleya disticophylla FSC
Mountain bittercress : Cardamine clematitis FSC
Tall larkspur,: Delphinium exaltatum . FSC*
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea .. FSC
Smoky, Mountain mannagrass .: GZyceria nubigena = FSG
Small whorled pogonia . Isotria medeolordes Threatened
"Butternut Juglanscinerea FSC.
% Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia frasen FSC.
Tofrey's mountain-rain
Rugel's ragwort )?
Carolina saxifrage Saxiilraga caroliniana ;.: FSC '.

January 29, 2003
c. Page S,oj6
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh; NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281' Fax' [phone] '.

t

Natural Systems
Site Assessment
T.I.P. B-4690
Bridge No. 55 on SR 1324
over Tucker Creek
Transylvania County, North Carolina
August 2003
Introduction
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants (MULKEY) has been retained by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to prepare a programmatic categorical exclusion
for a bridge replacement project located in Transylvania County, North Carolina. The
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 55 over Tucker Creek on SR 1324 (Tanasee Gap
Road), which is identified as Transportation Improvement Project (T.I.P.) B-4690 (Figure 1).
This assessment report briefly describes the natural systems associated with the bridge
location. Field investigations at the project site were conducted by a qualified biologist from
MULKEY during April 2003. The field survey was undertaken to determine natural
resource conditions and to document natural communities, wildlife, and the presence of
protected species or their habitats. Published information regarding the project area and
region was derived from a number of published resources. Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected, species within the project vicinity was gathered
from the US Fish and Wildlife Service list of protected species and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats.
Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Cindy S. Carr, Biologist
Education: BS Natural Resources (Ecosystem Assessment Concentration),
North Carolina State University
ASBA Business Administration, Calhoun State College
Experience: Mulkey Engineers & Consultants, November 2002 to present
Biologist, ARCADIS, May 2000 to November 2002
Sample Manager, CH2M HILL, October 1989 to June 1996
Certifications: Wetland Professional-In-Training, Society of Wetland Scientists
Stream ID and Buffer Rule Applications Program, NCDWQ
Benthic Collection Protocols for Stream Restoration, NCDWQ
Expertise: NEPA investigations, Section 7 field investigations, wetland determination
and delineation, stream determination and delineation, stream and wetland
restoration, habitat assessments, Rosgen stream assessment and classification,
404/401 permit applications, and USEPA HAZWOPER training.
Page 1 of 4
T.I.P. B-4690
Transylvania County 5
Natural Systems Assessment
Water Resources
The project site occurs in the upper portion of the French Broad River Basin. This basin is
composed of the French Broad Rivet, Pigeon River and Nolichucky River drainage areas.
Tucker Creek is located within Subbasin 04-03-01, which includes the North and West Fork
French Broad River headwaters. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
stream index number for Tucker Creek is 6-3-10 and the USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit is
06010105. The project is situated at the intersection of SR1423 and SR 1424 (Pressley Fields
Road) in the Balsam Grove community. This area is approximately 6 miles (9.7 kilometers)
north of US 64 and about 10 miles (16 kilometers) west of Brevard.
The NCDWQ classifies surface waters of the state based on their intended best uses.
Tucker Creek, as well as its tributaries Methany Creek, Johnnies Creek, and Jake Branch,
account for the surface waters in the project area and are Class "C - Tr" waters. A Class
"C" designation denotes freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish
and aquatic life propagation and survival, and others uses. The "Tt" designation denotes
freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. There are
currently no 303(d) listed streams in the project area.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-
quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical
water-quality data. The type of water-quality data or parameters collected is determined by
the waterbody's classification and corresponding water quality standards. The AMS
determines the "use support" status of waterbodies, meaning how well a waterbody supports
its designated uses. There are three AMS monitoring stations in this subbasm; however,
there are no AMS monitoring stations along Tucker Creek near the project site. The most
recent use support rating for Tucker Creek is "fully supporting. A fully supporting rating is
given to a waterbody that fully supports its designated uses and generally has good or
excellent water quality.
Short-term impacts to water quality from construction-related activities include increased
sedimentation and turbidity. Long-term construction related impacts to water resources
include substrate destabilization, bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow rates, and
possible temperature fluctuations within the channel due to removal of streamside
vegetation.
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from
construction. Appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage and control runoff.
Such measures should include an erosion and sedimentation control plan, provisions for
waste materials and storage, stormwatet management measures, and appropriate road
maintenance measures. NCDOT'sBertManagementPracticerforProtectionofSurface_Waters
(BMPs - PSW), Sedimentation Control guidelines, and design standards for sensitive
watersheds (15A NCAC 04B:0124) should be strictly enforced during the construction
stages of the project. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to design
standards for sensitive watersheds.
Page 2 of 4
c

T.I.P. B-4690
Transylvania County
Bridge demolition activities to remove the existing bridge ate included as part of the build
alternatives. The bridge demolition activities associated with this replacement will strictly
follow NCDOT's Bert Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR). As
per the BMPs - BDR, all methods of demolition shall be considered and implemented where
practical,' other than dropping the bridge in the water.
This project is considered a Case 2under BMPs-BDR guidelines. A Case 2 project allows no
work in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and
larval recruitment into nursery. areas. The NCWRC requests a moratorium prohibiting in-
stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot (7.6-meter) trout buffer from October
15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of rainbow trout (Oncorbymbus mykiss) and
brown trout (Salmo trutia). This recommendation is based upon classification of waters in
the project area and comments received from agencies during the consultation process.
Biotic Resources
Vegetative communities at the bridge site are representative of areas impacted and modified
by Waal residential development and agricultural uses. Several residences ate located on the
northeast, northwest, and southwest comers adjacent to the bridge. The homes have
personal garden plots adjacent to them. A buried utility cable is alsoJocated on the
southwest corner of the bridge. Riparian vegetation upstream from the bridge is
predominantly grasses, with a sparse covering of woody shrubs and trees at the top of the
stream banks. Upstream of the bridge, vegetation in the sparse riparian canopy included
white pine (Pinus strobus), red maple (Ater rubrum), various types of grasses (family Poaceae),
and multiflora rose (Rosa multzj7ora). Downstream of the bridge, riparian vegetation included
red oaks (Quercus spp.), various types of grasses (family Poaceae), multiflora rose (Rosa
mulliora), and rhododendron (Rhododendron maximus) were also dominant species at the site.
Existing Stream and Wetland Conditions
During the site visit, the stream had a moderate flow of cleat water over a sandy substrate .
with some small gravel. Woody debris in the bottom of the channel showed evidence of
sediment deposition. The channel width averaged 12 to 18 feet (3.7 to 5.5 meters) upstream
of the bridge, and averaged 20 to 25 feet (6.1 to 7.6 meters) wide downstream of the bridge.
Water depths in the meander bend pools averaged 3 to 4 feet (0.9 to 1.2 meters).
The upstream pattern was characterized by long runs, with a meander pool located
approximately 15 feet above the bridge. This portion of the channel appeared to have been
straightened at point during the past, possibly as part of residential development. The
downstream pattern was characterized by a continuation of the upstream run over a sandy
substrate. An extensive bedrock outcrop occurred approximately 100 feet below the bridge.
This outcrop formed a riffle and step-pool sequence that continued downstream for several
hundred feet. Numerous fish were observed in the stream during the site visit, both in the
runs and pools. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project area.
Page 3 of 4
T.I.P. B-4600
Transylvania County
Protected Species
Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-
protected be subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate laws. As of the 25 February 2003, Transylvania County species
list, the US Fish and Wildlife Service identified six Endangered (E) species, two Threatened
M species, one Threatened due to similarity of appearance[T(S/A)], and 30 Federal Species
of Concern (FSC) as occurring in the county. A review of habitat requirements for species
listed as threatened or endangered was completed prior to the field visit (Table 1). A search
of the project site found neither evidence of appropriate habitat for these species not any
evidence of these species occurring at the site.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program lists of May 2003 included the federally listed
species and identified 20 additional species receiving protection under state laws. Natural
Heritage Program maps were reviewed on February 10, 2003 to determine if any protected
species have been identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that no
protected species are known to occur; within a one mile radius of the project site.
Agency consultation was undertaken for this project with the USFWS, NCDWQ, and North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The USFWS noted that there are no
known locations of listed species in the project area. The NCDWQ commented that
replacing the current bridge with a culvert(s) involves two impacts to the same stream that
will be added together and may require. mitigation. The NCWRC.recommends a moratorium
prohibiting instream work and land.disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer from
October 15 to April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of rainbow trout (Oncorbynchur
mykiss) and brown trout (Salmo tmtta). Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere
to the design standards for sensitive watersheds.
Page 4 of 4
e?
t
I: Q \
I\l
f ti,J000 ?Kw:257\
i
?l
J ''"KKVVVV

=}r
-f-
l n
J II i
1 I / \ t [$1(g
J a , cam`7700 \ . 11 rv\a `'l?? r_.
r
?, ?'.
(lam\1 Itr1 n\ ,?' .-._`J ,'ti P' i \ \\ ' 1 ': ? aQx'? ,?
t
?1 .r'1.?5? r1 ? I° 1 f \./` rG _ 1 t ;? Grave
-too
,
?_ •M?.?? .? ? ?, c?'? ??`'>_`??? w :s B 4690
0 n,
B-4691
K
?.
Nil

r, nLl \
1
?ado
2610 N o.
Y
B-4690 and B-4691
Tucker Creek
Transylvania County, North Carolina
USGS-7.5 Minute
Topographic Quadrangle:
Lake Toxaway
Contour Interval 40 Feet
Created 1946, Photare,sed 1969
Table 1. Protected Species Listed for Transylvania County, North Carolina
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Preferred Habitat
Status
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergil
Carolina northern flying Glaucomys sabrinus co/oratus
squirrel
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
Oyster mussel
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Epioblasma capsaeformis
T(S/A) Slow, shallow, muck-bottomed rivulets of
sphagnum bogs, calcareous fens,
marshy/sedge-tussock meadows, spring
seeps, wet cow pastures, and shrub
'swamps; habitat usually contains an
abundance of grassy or mossy cover. The
turtles depend on a mosaic of microhabitats
for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation,
and shelter. Nests in open and elevated
ground in areas of moss, grassy tussocks,
or moist earth (sae Bury 1979). Digs shallow
nest or lays eggs in the top of a sedge
tussock. Found in bogs, wet pastures, wet
thickets of Mountain and Piedmont habitats.
E High elevation forests, mainly spruce-fir, in
Mountain region. Prefers coniferous and
mixed forest, but will utilize deciduous
woods; riparian woods; optimal conditions
have cool, moist, mature forest with
abundant standing and down snags.
Occupies tree cavities, leaf nests,
underground burrows; prefers cavities in
mature trees as den sites.
Habitat Available
in Study Area
No
No
E - Found in relatively shallow, medium-sized
creeks andrivers with cool, clean, well-
oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water.
Most often found in riffles, runs, and shallow
flowing pools with stable, relatively silt-free,
coarse sand and gravel substrate associated
with cobble, boulders, and/or bedrock.
Stability of the substrate appears to be
critical, and the species is seldom found in
stream reaches with accumulations of silt or
shifting sand, gravel, or cobble. Only in the
Little Tennessee and Nolichucky drainages
at present.
E Inhabits small to medium rivers in areas with
coarse sand to boulder substratum (rarely in
mud) and moderate to swift currents. It is
sometimes found associated with water-
willow (Justicia americans) beds and in
pockets of gravel between bedrock ledges in
areas of swift current.
No
No
Page 1 of 2
".p A